Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Sangalang v. IAC G.R. No.

71169 1 of 3

RESOLUTION
SARMIENTO, J.:
The incident before the Court refers to charges for contempt against Atty. J. Cezar Sangco, counsel for the
petitioners Spouses Jose and Lutgarda Sangalang. (G.R. No. 71169.)
On February 2, 1989, the Court issued a Resolution, requiring, among other things, Atty. Sangco to show cause
why he should not be punished for contempt "for using intemperate and accusatory language." On March 2, 1989,
Atty. Sangco filed an explanation.
The Court finds Atty. Sangco's remarks in his motion for reconsideration, reproduced as follows:
...
This Decision of this Court in the above-entitled case reads more like a Brief for Ayala ...
... [t]he Court not only put to serious question its own integrity and competence but also jeopardized
its own campaign against graft and corruption undeniably pervading the judiciary ...
...
The blatant disregard of controlling, documented and admitted facts not put in issue, such as those
summarily ignored in this case; the extraordinary efforts exerted to justify such arbitrariness and the
very strained and unwarranted conclusions drawn therefrom, are unparalleled in the history of this
Court ...
...
[i]t is submitted that this ruling is the most serious reflection on the Court's competence and integrity
and exemplifies its manifest partiality towards Ayala. It is a blatant disregard of documented and
incontrovertible and uncontroverted factual findings of the trial court fully supported by the records
and the true significance of those facts which both the respondent court and this Court did not bother
to read and consequently did not consider and discuss, least of all in the manner it did with respect to
those in which it arrived at conclusions favorable to Ayala.
...
... [A]re all these unusual exercise of such arbitrariness above suspicion? Will the current campaign
of this Court against graft and corruption in the judiciary be enhanced by such broad discretionary
power of courts?
His suggestions that the Court might have been guilty of graft and corruption in acting on these cases are not only
unbecoming, but comes, as well, as an open assault upon the Court's honor and integrity. In rendering its judgment,
the Court yielded to the records before it, and to the records alone, and not to outside influences, much less, the
influence of any of the parties. Atty. Sangco, as a former judge of an inferior court, should know better that in any
litigation, one party prevails, but his success will not justify indictments of bribery by the other party. He should be
aware that because of his accusations, he has done an enormous disservice to the integrity of the highest tribunal
and to the stability of the administration of justice in general.
As a former judge, Atty. Sangco also has to be aware that we are not bound by the findings of the trial court (in
Sangalang v. IAC G.R. No. 71169 2 of 3

which his clients prevailed).lâwphî1.ñèt But if we did not agree with the findings of the court a quo, it does not
follow that we had acted arbitrarily because, precisely, it is the office of an appeal to review the findings of the
inferior court.
To be sure, Atty. Sangco is entitled to his opinion, but not to a license to insult the Court with derogatory
statements and recourses to argumenta ad hominem. In that event, it is the Court's duty "to act to preserve the
honor and dignity ... and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession."
We are not satisfied with his explanation that he was merely defending the interests of his clients. As we held in
Laureta, a lawyer's "first duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his client's success
is wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics." And
while a lawyer must advocate his client's cause in utmost earnest and with the maximum skill he can marshal, he is
not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation, and innuendo.
That "[t]he questions propounded were not meant or intended to accuse but to ... challenge the thinking in the
Decision, comes as an eleventh-hour effort to cleanse what is in fact and plainly, an unfounded accusation.
Certainly, it is the prerogative of an unsuccessful party to ask for reconsideration, but as we held in Laureta,
litigants should not "'think that they will win a hearing by the sheer multiplication of words' ". As we indicated (see
Decision denying the motions for reconsideration in G.R. Nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281, and
deciding G.R. No. 60727, dated August 25, 1989), the movants have raised no new arguments to warrant
reconsideration and they can not veil that fact with inflammatory language.
Atty. Sangco himself admits that "[a]s a judge I have learned to live with and accept with grace criticisms of my
decisions". Apparently, he does not practice what he preaches. Of course, the Court is not unreceptive to comment
and critique of its decisions, but provided they are fair and dignified. Atty. Sangco has transcended the limits of fair
comment for which he deserves this Court's rebuke.
In our "show-cause" Resolution, we sought to hold Atty. Sangco in contempt, specifically, for resort to insulting
language amounting to disrespect toward the Court within the meaning of Section 1, of Rule 71, of the Rules of
Court. Clearly, however, his act also constitutes malpractice as the term is defined by Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, as follows:
CANON 11-A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND
TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
Rule 11.01...
Rule 11.02...
Rule 11.03-A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the Courts.
Rule 11.04-A lawyer should not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05...
Thus, aside from contempt, Atty. Sangco faces punishment for professional misconduct or malpractice.
WHEREFORE Atty. J. Cezar Sangco is (1) SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months effective
Sangalang v. IAC G.R. No. 71169 3 of 3

from receipt hereof, and (2) ORDERED to pay a fine of P 500.00 payable from receipt hereof. Let a copy of this
Resolution be entered in his record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Cortes, Griñ;o-Aquino,
Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., took no part.

Вам также может понравиться